Athlon 64 Benchmarks

[preacher]

AMD has Athlon 64 benchmarks up and it looks to be a P4 Killer.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9488%5E9532%5E9594,00.html

I am going through the pdf file and in most categories it beats the Pentium 4, however, in 3DMark 03 hardware vertex shaders at 1024X768x32, the Athlon64 FX 51 only met the performance of the P4, while the Athlon 64 3200+ did just a little worse. The good news is Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo Flyby, where the Athlon 64, and the Athlon 64 FX 51 just annihalated the P4. Looks to me like we have a new gaming monster on our hands. Check out the pdf.

[Zombie9920]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0LDU=

The Athlon FX is a good gaming performer but I wouldn't nessicarily call it a Pentium killer. The only test that the Athlon really excelled at was the UT2K3 test. In the 3DMark test it and the P4EE were really close(the scores were within margin of error). If the P4 with more cache memory can keep up with the Athlon FX I can only anticipate what the Prescott is going to do to it.

BTW, who in the hell is going to pay $800 for an Athlon FX CPU alone(add another $130+ for a motherboard)? A person buying a server might buy one but I don't see many desktop consumers buying one. People used to praise AMD because it offered a competitive product at a *reasonable price*. For $300 you can buy a P4 2.4c Ghz and and a good i865PE w/PAT enabled motherboard and run [email protected] all day long. Realisticaly, it will be plenty fast for whatever a person would want to do with it.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0LDU=

The Athlon FX is a good gaming performer but I wouldn't nessicarily call it a Pentium killer. The only test that the Athlon really excelled at was the UT2K3 test. In the 3DMark test it and the P4EE were really close(the scores were within margin of error). If the P4 with more cache memory can keep up with the Athlon FX I can only anticipate what the Prescott is going to do to it.

BTW, who in the hell is going to pay $800 for an Athlon FX CPU alone(add another $130+ for a motherboard)? A person buying a server might buy one but I don't see many desktop consumers buying one. People used to praise AMD because it offered a competitive product at a *reasonable price*. For $300 you can buy a P4 2.4c Ghz and and a good i865PE w/PAT enabled motherboard and run [email protected] all day long. Realisticaly, it will be plenty fast for whatever a person would want to do with it.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

Well first of all AMD is aiming at the high end gaming market obviously, and the price really isnt much higher than the P4c 3.2 ghz when it was released. I think it was around $700. Not only did it beat the P4 in UT2k3, but also in Serious Sam, Half Life Smokin, Splinter Cell, and Quake3 . Also I mentioned before that 3dmark 2003 was very close, however 3dmark2001 left amd as the clear winner. Since the market for the processor is the high end gamer, the price seems just right, and as time passes more of the average users will be able to afford it.

AMD finally does what it set out to do and intel lovers trash talk it immediately. Personally I use intel and amd processors in my computers and have no real preference for either one other than I like to know what the fastest is. Looks like AMD is winning.

[Zombie9920]

$700 is an understatement.

Try more like over $850. Newegg had it for $820 but they don't have any in stock now due to the limited availability of the CPU.

http://www.dealtime.com/dt-app/SE/KW-AMD%20ATHLON64%20FX51/FD-0/linkin_id-3033365/NS-1/GS.html

The P4 3.2c is around $580. $580 is way too much for a CPU as well considering the 3.0c is around 380$. The performance difference between a 3.0c and a 3.2c isn't big enough to justify the high price of the 3.2c.

What is great about the P4c is the gem called the 2.4c. It uses the same D1 core that the 3.2c uses meaning that it is able to [email protected] stabily...without any risks of CPU damage, etc. . It is every bit as fast as that 3.2c when it is running@that speed. The 2.4c is only around $170. You can pair it up with a $130 i865PE w/PAT enabled motherboard that costs about $130 and overclock it to 3.2ghz with no trouble. The i865 chipset allows you to overclock the CPU and keep your AGP/PCI and Memory buses running@spec speeds. Therefore that means that when you overclock that CPU you won't damage *ANYTHING* in your system. Of course, the i865PE with a motherboard that has a PAT hack to enable it with the i865 chipset(like the Asus P4P800 Deluxe or Abit IS7) is every bit as fast as a board with the i875 chipset(which has PAT natively). Combine that with your 2.4c that runs at 3.2ghz all day long with no hitch you have a high-end setup @ a low...low price(around $300 to be exact). You can't beat that.            

I'd be damned if I were to buy a CPU that is only about 10% faster than a CPU that is about 500% cheaper.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Zombie9920]

Now this is interesting. This guy(a regular person) has actually used an Athlon 64(non-FX) system. From what he says, he isn't about to ditch his P4 for a A64(read his last post on page 3). He actually said that it is no faster than 2.53ghz P4 systems that he has built and used.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=103644&st=0

That score he got with the A64 and Radeon 9800 is pretty shitty considering I can get a score that is only 1,000 marks lower on a Ti4200 in this box(yeah, I got bored and stuck one in here to test for shits and giggles). So what gives? Did AMD give hardware reviewers a special engineering sample of thier chip that happens to perform better than the chips that they actually ship for resell? Do the motherboards that are supplied to reviewers have special BIOS hacks that make the systems faster for testers? Even on AMD's site at the bottom of the performance chart it says the motherboard was using a BIOS that is not available to customers.

This is the 3DMark score that I got when I stuck a Ti4200 in my rig(the card, memory and buses are not overclcoked...only the CPU is overclocked).

 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6950466

A GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and Radeon 9800 Pro breaks 19000+ easily on my rig(yes I have tested them as well). As amatter of fact, they break at least 17500 on most peoples' P4c rigs.

All in all, I'm not impressed with the Athlon 64 at all. I think that it may actually turn out to be a flop if AMD doesn't lower the prices.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Now this is interesting. This guy(a regular person) has actually used an Athlon 64(non-FX) system. From what he says, he isn't about to ditch his P4 for a A64(read his last post on page 3). He actually said that it is no faster than 2.53ghz P4 systems that he has built and used.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=103644&st=0

That score he got with the A64 and Radeon 9800 is pretty shitty considering I can get a score that is only 1,000 marks lower on a Ti4200 in this box(yeah, I got bored and stuck one in here to test for shits and giggles). So what gives? Did AMD give hardware reviewers a special engineering sample of thier chip that happens to perform better than the chips that they actually ship for resell? Do the motherboards that are supplied to reviewers have special BIOS hacks that make the systems faster for testers? Even on AMD's site at the bottom of the performance chart it says the motherboard was using a BIOS that is not available to customers.

This is the 3DMark score that I got when I stuck a Ti4200 in my rig(the card, memory and buses are not overclcoked...only the CPU is overclocked).

 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6950466

A GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and Radeon 9800 Pro breaks 19000+ easily on my rig(yes I have tested them as well). As amatter of fact, they break at least 17500 on most peoples' P4c rigs.

All in all, I'm not impressed with the Athlon 64 at all. I think that it may actually turn out to be a flop if AMD doesn't lower the prices.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

You forget that he was using the 32 bit version of Windows XP. You can not take advantage of a 64 bit processor without 64 bit applications. I would like to see 64 bit versions of newer benchmarks. I wonder if it would make any difference. Also The Athlon 64 FX 51 is much more powerful than the regular Athlon 64.

[suselinux]

Here is a site showing the Athlon beating the G5

web page

from the begining

 

quote: Apple touts its new 64-bit Power Mac G5 as the world's fastest personal computer, but our initial tests indicate bragging rights may belong to PCs using AMD's Athlon 64 FX-51 chip.

 

 

quote: Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests.

[hm_murdock]

ya. the G5 even loses to the P4 for most things, I'm not surprised

re: XP 64-bit version... LET'S SEE THE THING

[cahult]

There should be a hardware section for all hardware, not just M

[xyle_one]

Reply